MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995540862 · doi:10.1002/da.20138

The Illness/Injury Sensitivity Index: an examination of construct validity

2006· article· en· W1995540862 on OpenAlexaff
R. Nicholas Carleton, Ilhyeok Park, Gordon J. G. Asmundson

Bibliographic record

VenueDepression and Anxiety · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstruct validityIndex (typography)PsychologyClinical psychologyConstruct (python library)PsychiatryMedicinePsychometricsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 11-item Illness/Injury Sensitivity Index [ISI; Taylor, 1993: J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry 24:289-299] measures fears of injury and illness and has the potential to delineate some mechanisms underlying anxiety-associated chronic health conditions. In a principal components analysis in 2005, Carleton et al. [2005a: J Psychopathol Behav Assess 27:235-241] indicated that a two-factor solution (Fear of Injury and Fear of Illness) best explained the structure of the ISI. The primary purpose of this study was to examine the structural and construct validity of the ISI. Results supported a two-factor solution after removal of two overinclusive items. Although the measure demonstrated good factorial validity, convergent and discriminant validity require further evaluation. In addition, a substantial correlation with fear of pain suggests a shift in our perspective on what constitutes a fundamental fear. Future research implications are discussed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations52
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDepression and AnxietySame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207